TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d within and outside the State. For the assessment year 1991-92, sales tax officer passed an order of assessment concerning the petitioner under section 41(3) of the Act on 06.05.1995. The petitioner received a notice dated 24.02.1999 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax calling for information relating to the purchases made by the petitioner during the period concerning the said assessment year. The Assistant Commissioner thereafter issued a notice dated 16.04.1999 to the petitioner proposing to levy purchase tax under section 15B of the Act on purchase of various raw materials in exercise of revisional powers. Upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner were beyond the limitation prescribed under section 67 of the Act. The petitioner also opposed the levy on merits. 4. Ignoring such pleas of the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner passed his order dated 06.08.1999, in which, he observed that it had come to its notice that the Assessing Officer had not levied purchase tax from the petitioner upon calling for the record of the case on 06.04.1997. The order of assessment wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. He submitted that in the present form, section 67 envisages issuance of notice and passing final order by the Revisional authority within 12 months from the date of receipt of such a notice. In this context, counsel relied on following decisions. 8. In case of State of Kerala and others (supra), the Court observed as under: "16. In Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT, (1990) 2 SCC 231 it has been held by this court that when in a taxation statute where literal interpretation leads to a result that does not subserve the object of the legislation another construction in consonance with the object can be adopted." 9. In case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), the Court observed as under: "33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, claus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico." 11. On the other hand, learned AGP Shri Pandya opposed the petition contending that the Tribunal has given elaborate reasons for confirming the decision of the Assistant Commissioner which is in consonance with the ratio laid down by this Court in case of Jamnagar Motor Stores (supra). The Assistant Commissioner had within two years from the date of the order of assessment called for the proceedings and applied his mind which was sufficient compliance of the limitation provision contained in section 67 of the Act. Merely because the notice was issued beyond a period of three years for revision would not make the exercise of revisional powers time barred. 12. The short question therefore that calls for consideration is did the Assistant Commissioner exercise revisional powers within the period of limitation prescribed. This exercise would have to be done on the basis of the statutory provision as it stood at the relevant time. For better understanding and inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Commissioner himself also pass the final order thereon. The Court held and observed "The period of 5 years referred to in section 57 refers to initiation of the revisional proceeding. It is not necessary that the entire process of revision must be completed within the specified period." 15. The Bombay Sales Tax Act was substituted by the Gujarat Sales Tax Act of 1969 which contained in section 67, a provision peri materia to section 57 of the Bombay Act. In the initial stage, the Commissioner was vested with the suomotu power of revision of any order passed by an officer appointed to assist him. The period of limitation prescribed for such purpose was three years from the date of the order. By the Act of 10 of 1979, with effect from 01.04.1979, the Commissioner was also granted power to raise an order on an application made to him within one year from the date of the order. However, the prescription of three years for exercise of suomotu revisional powers had relevance to the action of the Commissioner of calling for and examining the record of the order as was the position in the predecessor Act viz. the Bombay Sales Tax Act. In other words, the Commissioner was required....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provision that such order would have to be passed within 12 months from the date of service of notice of revision. The period of limitation of three years therefore must be seen in light of such important statutory change. It is true that the earlier portion of clause( a) of subsection (1) of section 67 even after amendment by virtue of the Act 10 of 1992 remained the same, however, statutory interpretation cannot remain static when the provision itself has undergone a material change. If we attach the same meaning to the amended provision as was given to the unamended provision, we would be failing in discerning the legislature intent in carrying out the amendment itself. In our opinion, the amendment was made in order to ensure exercise of suomotu revisional powers by the Commissioner, does not remain open ended and there is finality of a pending issue. In order to bring about an early end to uncertainty, therefore, clause( a) of subsection (1) of section 67 now prescribes the period of 12 months from the date of service of notice for revision within which the Commissioner must pass his final order. We may compare this provision with clause( b) of subsection (1) of section 67 wh....